Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

AIPAC is just one of the most powerful lobbies in washington, and note that many policies that involve israel have little to no benefit to the United States yet the US is willing to move heaven and earth for. Not to mention the amount of technology and intel we've shared with Mosad and the Israeli government. Aid is one thing, but considering how the US has helped deflect any blame from Israel is a reason why many arabs don't trust Americans. Just look, the invasion in lebanon was a breach of international law, and yet the united states backed israel, these big situtations create a hypocrisy which no rational human could accept, and let's not forget the current lack of desettlement in the gaza strip.

I have to straighten somethings up with you. If Israel really were the biggest lobbiest in America, why is all of the TV media against Israel? Why are the Democrats time and time again quick to join the rest of the world in criticizing Israel whenever it defends itself against the radical terrorists in Palestine?

The reason America supports Israel so much, is because it is the ONLY Democracy in the middle east. It's completely surrounded by enemies. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. At least that's been America's policy for generations.

It's not like we don't benefit from Israel's existence either. Take a good long look at alot of our medical technology. Designed and created in Israel.

But regardless, I'd love to get rid of Foreign aid altogether. Just scrap the whole thing and not give money to any country.

@justinstrife: Because "the Democrats" as you put it are taking their cake and eating it too? They criticize Israel because many of their constituents criticize Israel (for supposed excess and racism), while in reality they do little against actual financial and military support for Israel.

Why get rid of foreign aid? While the US should prioritize itself first in spending, scrapping foreign aid altogether would reduce its influence worldwide.

@justinstrife: Because "the Democrats" as you put it are taking their cake and eating it too? They criticize Israel because many of their constituents criticize Israel (for supposed excess and racism), while in reality they do little against actual financial and military support for Israel.

Why get rid of foreign aid? While the US should prioritize itself first in spending, scrapping foreign aid altogether would reduce its influence worldwide.

Because all that foreign aid has done, is create a dependency on the U.S. that I think is unhealthy. Like the entitlement programs here at home, the benefiters become reliant on it, and do nothing to ween themselves off that crack. I'm be for scrapping all entitlement programs and foreign aid and slim down the Federal Government greatly.

Because all that foreign aid has done, is create a dependency on the U.S. that I think is unhealthy. Like the entitlement programs here at home, the benefiters become reliant on it, and do nothing to ween themselves off that crack. I'm be for scrapping all entitlement programs and foreign aid and slim down the Federal Government greatly.

What evidence do you have that there is a dependency on the US, and why it's bad? From how I see it, as long as foreign countries are dependent on us, we effectively own and control them.
As for entitlement programs here, I'm pretty sure people like Octomom are the minority. The solution should be restricting the behavior of any person or corporation who receives government aid, not tossing it out completely.

Just because the media crucifies Israel does not mean the government is averse to the plight of the Israelies, you have democrats screaming and hollering about the injustices of the Israelies but it is a death sentence for any politician to remove appropriations from pro israeli programs. There have been countless leaked memo's confirming the power of the jewish lobby, and the technologies manufactured by the israeli's are not solely unique to the israeli's. Also it's asinine to think that the Israeli's ever do anything other than protecting the interest of Israel.

Apparently, a British company has been selling fake bomb detectors to the Iraqi government and making millions. They had to know that doing this would get people killed, but they still sold them. Welcome to capitalism.

^While some of what Olbermann says is credible, in the end, it slowly becomes the "left-wing" version of Beck's "Fear Chamber" segment (which was gladly euthanized after Colbert's hilarious sendoff). Predicting the worst case scenario always makes for fun television, but it also amost always seems the least realistic. He should have simply explained the real world consequences that day-to-day people can actually connect with, not the extremes...

Still, it is better expressed and told than anything on Beck's program. This is what Rhetoric should be. Not just overzealous emotions (which Beck and others do so well), but real reasons, even if imaginative and over-the-top.

^While some of what Olbermann says is credible, in the end, it slowly becomes the "left-wing" version of Beck's "Fear Chamber" segment (which was gladly euthanized after Colbert's hilarious sendoff). Predicting the worst case scenario always makes for fun television, but it also amost always seems the least realistic. He should have simply explained the real world consequences that day-to-day people can actually connect with, not the extremes...

Still, it is better expressed and told than anything on Beck's program. This is what Rhetoric should be. Not just overzealous emotions (which Beck and others do so well), but real reasons, even if imaginative and over-the-top.

Last night stewart lampooned olberman and it was hilarious, occasionally I watch olberman when he actually calls out the greed and corruption of washington dc but yea, i'll post the link to the clip as soon as i can find it

When Jang Ja-yeon killed herself at her home earlier this month, she not only deprived South Korea of a wildly popular soap star. In a damning letter naming the men responsible for the distress that may have caused her to take her life aged 26, Jang heaped shame on the country's entertainment industry with allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation.
In the seven-page letter, written a week before her death, the star of Boys Over Flowers, South Korea's most avidly watched soap opera, chronicled the sexual and other favours she was expected to extend to progress in the cutthroat "Korean Wave" of TV and film.
After making her debut in a 2006 TV commercial, Jang cemented her fame as a vindictive schoolgirl in the soap, and was awaiting the release of her first two films when she died. Almost one million fans visited her website in the 48 hours after her death, on 7 March.
Her allegations, leaked to the media, have prompted an outcry and forced the police to investigate her relationships with several powerful men.

I don't know anyone outside of my one boss who likes Olbermann. What he said about Scott Brown the other day was enough to make me never take him seriously.

I just listened to the video. The guy has absolutely no clue about anything.

If it helps, I don't think much of him either... he's just "loud on the other side". More lethal in discussions are folks like Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow, neither yells and they come armed with libraries of data, history, and philosophy.

If it helps, I don't think much of him either... he's just "loud on the other side". More lethal in discussions are folks like Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow, neither yells and they come armed with libraries of data, history, and philosophy.

I have no problems with people who don't resort to name calling and back up what they say with facts. Keith Olbermann is about onpar with Michael Savage in my opinion. Only extremists would listen to either of them.

BERLIN — Three months after the United States announced a reformulated missile-defense plan for Poland, the Polish defense minister has announced that American surface-to-air missiles will be deployed near Russian soil.

The minister, Bogdan Klich, said Wednesday that an undisclosed number of missiles would be deployed in the vicinity of Morag, in northern Poland, just 35 miles from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. He said the missiles could arrive as soon as late March or early April.

He said the decision to base the missiles near Morag, and not Warsaw, had no political or strategic significance. “The only reason was the good infrastructure,” Mr. Klich said.

The United States had promised the missiles to Poland in October, after President Obama had scrapped a missile-defense system proposed by President George W. Bush.

Morag is already home to a Polish military base. Mr. Klich said it could easily be adapted to the needs of the new missile battery and the American soldiers who would be based in Poland once the missiles were sent there.

While the placement of the missiles so close to Russia could be seen as provocative, Russia denied a report that it planned to increase the arsenal of its Baltic Fleet in response to Poland’s announcement.

“No changes are planned in the combat components of the Baltic Fleet in connection with the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles close to the border with Russia,” the Defense Ministry said Thursday in a statement carried by news agencies.

The Russian news agency RIA Novosti had earlier quoted an official in the Baltic Fleet as saying that Russia would increase the fleet’s weaponry in response to the Polish announcement.

Wow, that's lovely. Think about it, the Poles are going to launch American missiles from Russian Soil.

Near Russian soil (Poland/Russia border), you mean? It's MAD all over again, it seems. Do the Western (EU will need to give its implicit okay as well) strategists think of an impending attack by Russia is forthcoming, though, or are they worried that the current Russia, for example, is going to lose control of its weapons/troops?

Apparently, a British company has been selling fake bomb detectors to the Iraqi government and making millions. They had to know that doing this would get people killed, but they still sold them. Welcome to capitalism.

/shrugs You had the milk contamination scandal in China not too long ago as well. IMHO, all -ism's (like capitalism, communism and socialism) are now no longer as "pure" as they could be, but rather corrupted by greed, selfishness and stupidity. Oh, well. I wonder who got bribed on the Iraq side to let this "product" through the purchasing process, though.

__________________

"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!

Near Russian soil (Poland/Russia border), you mean? It's MAD all over again, it seems. Do the Western (EU will need to give its implicit okay as well) strategists think of an impending attack by Russia is forthcoming, though, or are they worried that the current Russia, for example, is going to lose control of its weapons/troops?

I have no problems with people who don't resort to name calling and back up what they say with facts. Keith Olbermann is about onpar with Michael Savage in my opinion. Only extremists would listen to either of them.

see this is a rational statement, yet the problem is Michael savage, Glenn beck, and rush limbaugh are the current "core" that RNC seems to gravitate toward to. The ones that scream socialism at anyone who dissents, somewhat dredges up the fear back during the mcarthy era.

Unless you get a return to the "glory days" of the USSR, the first isn't too likely, but even in that case, it'll be too early to say the direction that new political entity will take, IMHO. Hell, we may even end up with a Second Russia Empire instead. Losing control of its troops is more likely - given conditions like health, economic, and geopolitical in the region - but selling weapons on the black market (after "disappearing" them first through paperwork) looks to be the more serious problem. A straight missile launch... Risky - unless the "black hats" want to stir up trouble somewhere?

__________________

"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't more people happy?" -- Misc.

Currently listening: Nadda
Currently reading: Procrastination for the win!
Currently playing: "Quest of D", "Border Break" and "Gundam Senjou no Kizuna".
Waiting for: "Shining Force Cross"!